Using Justice to Suppress the Vote
June 7, 2007 The U.S. Attorney scandal is only a part of the story Broader attempt to use government institutions for partisan ends
• United States Attorneys • Civil Rights Division of DOJ • Election Assistance Commission • State government institutions • Federal and state legislatures Four connected pieces of the strategy
Dismantling Fomenting infrastructure fear of of Justice voter fraud Hans von Spakovsky Brad Schlozman • Counsel, • Acting Ass’t Attorney Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights General for Civil Rights • United States Attorney, • Fulton County, Georgia Politically Restricting W.D. Missouri Board of Registration and Elections motivated registration prosecutions and voting Maine Overview of the effort purge lawsuit
“No match, Pressure on “No match, Indiana Election- no vote” EAC to no vote” purge eve fraud letter to MD change AZ agreement lawsuit indictments ID decision with CA
2004 2005 2006 2007
Texas DOJ argues DOJ says no mid-decade no private provisional Missouri Voter ID redistricting right in ballots purge bill precleared HAVA lawsuit passes w/o ID House
Georgia DOJ says OK New U.S. photo ID to cast but Jersey Attorney law not count purge purge precleared provisional lawsuit ballots Dismantling the infrastructure of Justice Ds h p r bbbc ccb cccccbb bb bccbc b bb bbb bb bb c c c bc ccbb 2007 55% of attorneys leave Voting Section in 2 years • Partisan hiring process • Altered performance evaluations • Political retaliation on the job Chasing the voter fraud phantom . . .
A hq
Alleged “hotbeds” of individual voter fraud • Missouri 2000: 0.0003% • New Jersey 2004: 0.0004% • Ohio 2004: 0.00004% Struck by lightning: • Washington 2004: 0.0009% 0.0004% • Wisconsin 2004: 0.0002% . . . for partisan ends
A hq
“Among Republicans it is an ‘article of religious faith that voter fraud is causing us to lose elections,’ [Royal] Masset[, former political director of the Republican Party of Texas,] said. He doesn’t agree with that, but does believe that requiring photo IDs could cause enough of a dropoff in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 percent to the Republican vote.” - Houston Chronicle May 17, 2007 Fear of fraud has been used to justify all sorts of restrictions
A hq
• Restrictive voter ID 5/16/07 “Photo IDs could • Limits on voter registration end voter fraud” • Purges 3/18/06 “Vote fraud: • Proof of citizenship requirements Milwaukee purge demonstrates the • Provisional ballot restrictions need for W.Va. officials to act” Pushing illegal voter ID laws that keep voters from the polls
Wvt vtu • Georgia law signed, April 22, 2005 subject to DOJ preclearance • von Spakovsky “Publius” article June 2005 endorsing voter ID • Career staff recommend August 25, 2005 objection under Voting Rights Act • Political appointees approve law August 26, 2005
• Law struck down by federal court October 18, 2005 Restrictive photo ID laws lock out eligible voters
Wvt vtu
• 10 % of the voting-age population no government photo ID (> 20 million voters) • 36 % of voters over 75 no driver’s license in Georgia • 78 % of African-American men 18-24 no valid driver’s license in Wisconsin • 97 % of students no current address on a Wisconsin driver’s license Pushing illegal “matching” that keeps voters off the rolls
Wvt vtu
• von Spakovsky’s “no match, no vote” opinion • Schlozman’s “model” agreement with CA BUT • 20-30% initial rejection rate of new registrants • Struck down by federal court Pushing aggressive purges
Wvt vtu
(no significant registration deadwood)
Significant registration deadwood EAC 2004 survey Pushing proof of citizenship requirements
Wvt vtu 22,000 voters rejected in Arizona EAC decision: additional proof (on top of federal form) is illegal and then… Approving discriminatory redistricting plans
Wvt vtu
• “With the extreme level of polarization in the district, Hispanic voters simply no longer have any ability to elect their candidate of choice.” – Career attorney memo, December 12, 2003 • “The Attorney General does not interpose any objection to the specified changes…” – DOJ approval letter, December 19, 2003 • “In essence the State took away the Latinos’ opportunity because Latinos were about to exercise it.” – U.S. Supreme Court, LULAC v. Perry Pushing other legal rules that harm voters
Wvt vtu • DOJ: Voters can’t go to court to enforce the Help America Vote Act • DOJ: States can prevent voters from casting provisional ballots • DOJ: Provisional ballots can be cast but not counted • DOJ: Uphold Ohio’s discriminatory challenger law Pushing politically motivated prosecutions
Q rpv
• “I believe the primary reason for my forced resignation is that I was not engaged in filing criminal complaints … in advance of the '06 election.” – former U.S. Att’y David Iglesias, quoted in L.A. Times, May 19, 2007
• “At least one other recently ousted United States attorney, John McKay of Seattle, said he believed that Bush administration officials were similarly angry that he had not prosecuted voter fraud cases involving Democrats.” – New York Times, Mar. 18, 2007 Violating DOJ policy
Q rpv
SCHLOZMAN: I was aware of the general policy that the Department refrains from indicting certain election-related crimes before an election. * * * LEAHY: Would it have affected your ability to bring the prosecution if you had just waited a few testimony before Senate Judiciary weeks until the election was over? Committee June 5, 2007 SCHLOZMAN: I doubt there would have been any impact on the actual prosecution. DOJ has been involved throughout . . .
Georgia photo ID law 9 9
“No match, no vote” registration policy 9 9
Missouri purge of voter rolls 9 9
Arizona proof of citizenship 9 9 Texas mid-decade redistricting 9 9 Missouri last-minute indictment 9 4 . . . and wrong throughout
Georgia photo ID law Struck9 down by court 9
“No match, no vote” registration policy Struck9 down by court 9
Missouri purge of voter rolls Struck9 down by court 9
Arizona proof of citizenship Tens9 of thousands blocked9 Texas mid-decade redistricting Struck9 down by court 9 Missouri last-minute indictment Effect9 on election??? 9 What must be done?
• Thoroughly question von Spakovsky • Carefully investigate government vote suppression efforts • Reject von Spakovsky nomination • Pass election agenda that protects the vote